Tony F Dordogne

But Russethouse, it doesn't matter what the reaction in the UK is, unless you're a Labour politician.  WE don't care.  I wasn't bothered that I had to surrender DLA until October 2007 and now I bloody well am, because the European CJ said that the UK government broke the law when they stopped tha DLA payments.  I've said several times on here over the years that those people who use any benefit payment as part of their 'move to France' budget are treading on dangerous ground but if a benefit I received in the UK was supposed to have been paid, then fair enough.  As far as J and I are concerned, it's a welcome extra but nothing that we're writing into our household budget on a long-term basis. But to be honest, with all the other crap that's flying about at the moment, the DLA issue is small beer and unless somebody uses it as a bandwagon - the Tories and Lib Dems want the benefit paid to give them another stick to beat the government with and Labour certainly aren't making a fuss about it, unless some arseh**e like Jeremy Clarkson or that Littlejohn guy decides to run a two day campaign on it, I don't think it's at all an issue politically. What is interesting is that when a few radio etc articles have been run on this, nobody has taken it up, except politicians who want to use it for their own ends. And with the MPs expenses row going on, I think that many of those who really have their faces in the trough may be somewhat pre-occupied. And no, this wasn't part of the bigger picture, this row started in 1999, the 2007 decision was the final hearing so the UK government had AGES and AGES to get all this sorted out. 

Sorry folks, we don't want this to degenerate into a squabble as in 36 pages (excluding this one) we've managed to leave the politics out of things and concentrate on the real issue, without the thread wandering all over the place. Grecophile, Woolybanana has been a user on this place for many years and we all know him well.  Woolybanana, Grecophile has provided some very useful information - as you've pbviosly read - in the short time that she's been among us and she obviously has very strong views, probably prompted by the shabby way that she's been treated, not by politicians but by their civil servants - and lawyers!. Please guys, we've got enough on our plates trying to get the civil servants to do what they're supposed to do without any distractions or animosities which - thus far - we've managed to avoid and which have been discussed elsewhere at some length. 

The problem with all the links above is the price as far as I'm concerned, they are far too pricey and if DR can get them shipped over in bulk, that would be brilliant especially if the price is reduced.. I think that Rootrainers are the dogs doodles and as DR says, once used it's so difficult to go back to anything else. The French agent (from whom I ordered in 2006) took 6 months to forward them to me and when I spoke to the manufacturer, they told me my order was despatched as soon as they received it - the agent had held the order and my cheque for 6 months!  When I ordered direct they were slightly less that the retail price but the postage costs were prohibitive. DR, if you can make it work, good luck to you!

I have a copy of the law in diagramatic form from a French gardening magazine about hedges. If you email me I'll send you a copy. Edit:  Should have added - where are you?

[quote user="homepride62"]hi all , my friend has house in france hes asked me to go out there an plaster it for him , as not great deal going on in uk i thinkin why not , will do it for beer an food , can sameone tell me is that workin on the black or helping a friend ? many thanks[/quote] Nice wind-up homepride - and come to think of it, the spelling errors have an air of familiarity about them :)

[quote user="carmelle"]If you don't find a smaller , it's because  there are standards now , and you can't avoid them .[/quote] I'm aware there are standards Carmelle, I'm on a committee which works with/oversees some of the work of my local SPANC and I'm not trying to avoid anything, just trying to make something fit into a finite space.

Hi guys I'm looking to replace the grease trap and having looked around, all I can find is a 500 l one in Leroy Merlin and a 200 l one in Brico Depot, both of which are far too big. Do any of you plumber type techy people know where I'm likely to find something like a 100 litre grease trap - all I have atm is sort of a stone basin (came with the house) which is gross at the best of times.

I'm fine with all the DR and Grecophile have said. So, I'll fill in my form today and then get it in the post in the next few days, amended and with a covering letter reminding Wendy Kettle that she told me last June (incorrectly) that my file had been destroyed etc etc and asking for reinstatement rather than this being a new claim. And that they write back to confirm  all of the above and then a statement of reason for their decision, pro or con! Thought I'd left all this sort of thing back in the Uk, it's 25 years plus since I ran a welfare rights team in London and I just feel (a) knackered with the whole thing, and (b) increasingly p****d off with the ExpoTeam's lies and attempts at reasoning - and where do the DLA get their lawyers from, Lawyers 4 U? 

Grecophile, no problem with the majority of what you say except their ability to get your file out of storage.  I have been told on 3 seperate occassions by the DLA or ExpoTeam that they do not have files after the claim has been closed for 14 months.  Whilst there may still be a computer record of your husband being a claimant - as there was for me - I was filed under 'inactive' and they had no details of my claim, how much I was paid etc.  They asked me to send them any supporting material that I had, which I did - notification of being awarded the benefit originally, copies of the letters which 'upgraded' me, the letter telling me that I had the benefit for a second term. I would not be at all sure that they actually have your husband's records any more.

They're all in many of the French gardening diaries and Rustica have a list of the major fairs every week.

What post?

[quote user="grecophile-2008"] My understanding is that the majority of claimants are going to fail!!!!!  [/quote] What makes you say that? And is Wendy Kettle pre-judging the whole thing here?

Carmelle, I speak to people daily in the US with cancer - the costs of care depend on a huge number of variables and from what my US chums tell me, it's impossible to quantify the way you've asked it. Try the web site of ACOR, which is an American umbrella group for cancer groups, they may be able to help you further.

[quote user="shablwe"]Numerous threads from really desperate people (not all freeloaders just unfortunates) since the health regs changed - i for one wish them well...... now could someone please outline a cast iron, incontestable way to prove 5 years residence?[/quote] I seem to recall that five years worth of tax returns has been mentioned as the most appropriate way of proving 5 years of residence, attestation from the Mairie may also work if you've been resident here full time.

Perhaps we need to collectively - that is all at the same time - contact the Office of the Ombudsman to see what help they can give, I know that initially a complainant should go through the complaints procedure for the Department concerned but as I've been told that the DLA/ExpoTeam Office will deal with complaints, it's like asking them to investigate themselves. Perhaps it's the Ombudsman next, to see if there's a way of making a complaint when we have no faith in the internal systems.

[quote user="lorna"]Just to remind you in case it helps and before I go (away for 2 weeks) - we moved in June 2008 - benefit stopped - applied July 2008 - benefit reinstated as of June 2008. Notified Jan 2009. More detail in previous posts.[/quote] 14 month rule applies so Lorna's case would still have been on the computer AND it was AFTER the ECJ hearing so much more straight forward for the ExpoTeam to deal with.

What amazes me is that this argument still rages.  For goodness sake, we all made decisions about our working careers and as a result, some of us benefited better than others but that's life. Getting personal or making derogatory comments, veiled or otherwise, achieves nothing. So some people have done better than others in their careers or in their pension rights - well, that' as is often said, is life.  Some you win and some you loose.

And that seems to beg the question as to when 'the date on which entitlement to benefit can be established' because from what the ExpoTeam are saying, it's the date on which we re-apply for DLA, not the date on which it was originally granted. Unless of course the date of 'export', which is I assume the date on which any of us left the UK, over-rides that date. Does ANYBODY have a clear idea opf what's happening now because I for one am getting mighty confused, it appears that there is a real division between what the Minister/s are saying and what the ExpoTeam are saying. Edit:  Just pinged Wendy Kettle another (priority this time) email asking whether the reference and paragraph above negates Q16 of DBD990 and what "the date on which entitlement to benefit can be established" because this seems to wholly contradict what the ExpoTeam have told me in a previous email - like what is the date of 'export' because it appears to be the date you leave the UK, therefore the information I was sent that my date of eligibility is now October 2007 - when I reapplied- is a nonsense.

Martin, your claim should just be dealt with on the basis that you ceased to claim in 2003 and you want reinstatement back to that date, including payments and now, apparently, i nterest on the money.  Ignore the 2005, that's to do with individual claims, so for 2005 in your case, read 2003.

[quote user="grecophile-2008"] I have just been looking at the guide and note that under section 12 "What is Maladministration" the DWP guide cites -omission to notify those who thereby lose a right of appeal. [/quote] And on this issue, my latest email to them seeks to clarify the position concerning being penalised for not appealing against a decision that we couldn't win, it's not that we lost the right to appeal, it's just that as the law was drawn at that time, so far as the majority of us were concerned, any appeal would have been unsuccesful.  Using the information that you've provided, it would appear that we would have been able to lodge an appeal with some chance of success. Do you have any correspondence with the DLA on this issue, it may be useful for the rest of us to use?

[quote user="grecophile-2008"] Does anyone know how many people have been successful so far in getting DLA,  AA and Carers reinstated and if so how did they do it. Any tips would be gratefully received. [/quote] So far as I've read thus far it's only the people that have moved to Europe after the ECJ October 2007 ruling that have thus far been re-instated, mainly because they would still appear on the computer as many of them would have reclaimed within the 14 month period after which DLA records are wiped. From what I've heard from other people affected and the DLA itself, those people claiming for benefits which were stopped/surrendered prior to October 2007 are now being processed in the order of the DLA ExpoTeam received their new forms, hence these new supplementary  forms DBD990 being sent out in that order, effectively as our claim is entered onto the computer and is seen as 'live', containing questions which do not appear on current DLA claim forms, which we've already filled in! 

Grecophile, that's going to really confuse the issue but hopefully to the benefit of claimants. Now, I'm going to ask for a copy of 'Financial Redress for Maladminsitration', just to see how far I get with the request. And as for interest, that will really cause the DLA some upset.

After my previous posting of the reply I received from the ExpoTeam, I sent them another email on the 10th March: "Thank you for your reply to my email of 10 March. Can I clarify what you have told me please? I surrendered my benefit in October 2005.  You say that at that time there was no error in law so even if I had submitted an appeal as there was no error in law, such an appeal would have been both pointless and fruitless because the decision on DLA was final and incontrovertible. Effectively, had I submitted an appeal, which may not have even been allowed as there was no error in law and would certainly not have been successful, that would have enabled me to claim the benefit for the period October 2005 to October 2007?  Is that the position? Can I point out to you that, on the advice of one of your colleagues, I submitted an appeal to your office, with my claim for re-instatement, in October 2007.  Although I appreciate that may have been outside the normal appeals period, telling somebody that they should have appealed against a decision that could not have been overturned come what may, seems bizarre to say the very least." I sent them a reminder that I was still awaiting a reply on Saturday last and today received a reply: "Further to your e mail of 12th March 2009 I am sorry I am unable to provide you with a full reply at this time. I am in receipt of all previous correspondence concerning this matter and hope to be able to consider all the points you raise and provide you with a full reply within the next 14 days.  Should you have any queries in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me." So that clarifies that then, more waiting time because they don't know the answer.  

If the money that the guy's wife had was indeed a joint asset, as personal assets can be attacked in bankruptcy cases, I'm surprised that didn't get included in his asset statement - perhaps it came afterwards. The fact that this guy is now in France doesn't mean he's escaped his debts.  As people have posted here recently, bad payers and people with judgements against them can be pursued in France now by debt collectors. What worries me is that this guy may be plying his trade and stealing here also - asking for money up front perhaps and then perhaps not doing work, running up debts here and welshing on the payments etc - and if he's in my area, I'd really like to make sure that people locally know of his 'pedigree' and that any dealings with him and perhaps his family, are regarded sceptically. I don't want to kick him whilst he's down but if this guy is a serial welsher and sort of has a habit of bunking off his debts and has a/more than one criminal conviction for money related criminal activites, it would be useful for people to know who he is. It's pointless telling us all that this guy is here and then not giving more details - I know of three Uk plumbers in this area and one has certainly got a very chequered financial background - unless the OP can at least tell us in private who this guy is or point to a link to a newspaper report of the court case in which he was convicted, it's a bit pointless posting the original message.

He did it, as others have done, because the stupid rules in the Houses of Parliament say that he can and, from a programme a few days ago, MPs think that as their salary is so low, expenses 'make it up' to a better level. All the financial dealing of Parliament need sorting, like the attendance allowance in the Lords, so long as they sign in for the day, whether they stay or not, they get paid! Still, we voted them in and we allow this to happen, until there's a huge groundswell of critisim directly to Parliament from the voters, letters etc rather than well-heeled journos having a go, they'll do nothing.